Sharp as a Marble - One of the reasons I have very little hope for the future

<< We’re #11! | Home | Being that my cats’ names are Bueller and Sloane >>

One of the reasons I have very little hope for the future

Politics

From a comment in this post, talking about Palin

I am in Palin’s camp now. The media is terrified of her because I think in their heart of hearts they know she can unleash an era of Conservative effectiveness that will turn America around.

Emphasis mine.

We’re screwed if all anyone is waiting for is a single “leader” to come and make everything roses & chocolates again.

Do you want to see the country return to its founding principles? You want to see the government adhere to the Constitution? You truly desire freedom and liberty? If there’s a flood of conservatism waiting in the wings, unleash it yourself! Stop waiting around for someone to tell you to go after what you want, go grab it yourself.

I am not fit to be lead and I don’t want a “leader”. I can quench that particular thirst by simply going to work. Our forefathers shed their blood to rid themselves of royalty and here we are simply looking for the most benevolent King or Queen.

I like Palin insofar as she makes the right people’s heads explode. She’s playing the MSM like a fiddle and they’re dancing to her tune every single time. The woman can give the talking heads on TV the vapors by just ordering a value meal from McDonalds. When she was running as the VP, I read a lot into her tenure as Alaska’s Governor and her record was fairly decent. She had faults and failures which meant she was human, but overall it did appear she ran a much more conservative governorship than anything I’ve ever seen. But, I don’t really see her as some sort of American Savior.

That job falls to the Americans.

We need to stop letting these idiots who can’t even keep their privates off of the Internet run our country into the ground. We need to stop bending over with each new unconstitutional law they pass and start ignoring them. The key word there is WE, not some politician (and make no bones about it, Sarah Palin is still a politician) who will come in with a magic wand and make all the bad things go away. It’s that false belief in ‘Hope & Change’ that got us here today, and I’m not just talking about Obama.

YOU do it. Don’t want for someone else. That’s the problem.

posted @ 6/11/2011 9:29:55 PM

Incoming Links

Do It, Already. « William The Coroner’s Forensic Files on 6/12/2011 11:15:10 PM

SayUncle » You’re not voting your way out of this on 6/13/2011 10:26:53 AM

Comments

Jake says:

on 6/11/2011 10:17:30 PM

I think Sir Terry Pratchett said it best, when he noted that people seem to have a king-shaped hole in their heads, and keep trying to fill it.

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 6/11/2011 10:24:44 PM

Everything you say is correct. The problem is that I. Think you are arguing against someone who is just inarticulate in what she is saying.

What Sarah does is not so much act as a leader so much as offer a different example that demolishes the leftist argument that in order to be a "real" woman you have to espouse all the "correct" leftist thoughts. Sarah shows women that it is ok to be conservative.

Since the left depends entirely upon shunning anyone who disagrees with them, if women decide that they don't care if they get shunned, it's all over for the left. They are in the position of the slave master telling the slaves "you need to stay here because freedom is too tough for you to endure."

Sarah isn't a leader so much as the counter example that destroys the argument.

markofafreeman says:

on 6/11/2011 10:36:18 PM

+1

As of a few weeks ago, I am strongly considering not just supporting Palin (if she runs) but working for her campaign.

The way I see it, we are not going to vote ourselves out of this mess. But, I'm taking a gamble here that having someone like Palin in the White House will delay the coming collapse. I have no illusions about her fallible humanity. Though she did even take on the establishment of her own party in Alaska, so that's a good sign right there.

If anyone has any illusions about finding the right person to lead us, read Kevin Baker's What We Got Here is . . . Failure to Communicate überpost for a good description of the difference between collectivists and those who trust individuals. We don't look for angels. Collectivist tend to have an unconstrained view that holds to the theory that their social engineering efforts will work if they try harder and get the right people in power.

For me, it's just a cold analysis that I think Palin is the most likely (provided there's more tea party-ish wins in the legislature) to roll some insanity back and slow the train down before it careens off the cliff, just long enough to for me and those I care about to prepare a little better.

And I'll never be a Palinista.

Borepatch says:

on 6/12/2011 12:44:58 AM

But, I don’t really see her as some sort of American Savior.

That job falls to the Americans.

Win.

Borepatch says:

on 6/12/2011 12:46:14 AM

And +5 Insightful to Sean Sorrentino.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/12/2011 10:22:41 AM

Sean, I agree that Sarah is a powerful voice. I can deal with inarticulateness because it has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm from the South. They teach inarticulateness in school ;) I'd vote for her over any of the jackwagons they're trying to push on us right now.

But what I'm bothered by is this belief that the *right* King or Queen is all we need. Be it the Palinistas or the Paul-ites, the belief that if only the *right* person was in power, all would be better is dangerous and leads to... well, Obama.

What *should* happen is that we should be able to put a random citizen in the office of the president and not have to worry about them screwing up the country. What's the use in having elections if it takes decades to undo shitty policies from the previous administration.

If we really worked toward being free men and women, we'd not be worrying about having to find the perfect candidate for POTUS because it wouldn't really matter.

SPQR says:

on 6/12/2011 11:41:22 AM

You have a good point, Robb. Its the "Man on a White Horse" syndrome.

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 6/12/2011 12:20:29 PM

I hate that "Man on a White Horse" crap. it implies that the rest of us are damsels in distress who are too stupid/incompetent/whatever to do for ourselves. I wonder if the Media(tm) push that storyline because that's how they really see us.

Robb, I thought that the comment that you quoted in the original post was a woman, and that commenter was the inarticulate one I was referring to. I didn't think you were arguing against her. She can't be our hero, but she can certainly be the catalyst (in the true chemical sense) that starts the preference cascade.

That's why she makes all the right people's head explode.

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 6/12/2011 12:21:32 PM

I didn't think you were arguing against Sarah.

Sorry, too many pronouns.

mariner says:

on 6/12/2011 4:19:35 PM

I'll vote for Sarah, send her as much money as I can, and work in her campaign should she run.

But I don't believe we'd be headed back to Constitutional legitimacy. There aren't enough Americans left who really care about freedom.

Kevin Baker says:

on 6/12/2011 6:07:52 PM

But I don't believe we'd be headed back to Constitutional legitimacy. There aren't enough Americans left who really care about freedom.

There aren't enough left who have been taught what it means. Especially not that with freedom comes the responsibility not to abuse it.

Thanks for the plug, markofafreeman.

Weer'd Beard says:

on 6/12/2011 10:50:46 PM

My feet are VERY cold for Sarah. Why? Well when McCain tapped her I was VERY excited about her.

Essentially she was my "Hope and Change".

Now I've seen how that worked out for the stary-eyed Commies...

markofafreeman says:

on 6/13/2011 12:42:28 AM

Now I've seen how that worked out for the stary-eyed Commies...

Wait. Are you implying that it was Palin who gave Obama his 2008 victory?

All you have to do is look at the poll history (try here) and you'll see that McCain was behind in almost all polls between May and August of 2008 and actually got a bump in a number of them after picking Palin. And then the GOP establishment smearing of her kicked in and it went back down.

After the 2010 elections, I'm slightly more optimistic that that won't work this time. And a nice percentage of Palin's endorsements (mostly tea party types, but, yeah, there were definitely some maddening outliers). She's got two books, a movie, huge social media presence, and she's driving the media crazy because they can't get her to work within their rules.

Pardon the language, here, but in my view, the media, the left, and the GOP establishment has basically blown its wad. What they thought was going to be a treasure trove of controversy in her email, they've now sheepishly admitted is actually going to help her.

It's definitely not a shoe-in, and in line with Robb's post, it's not going to be nirvana if she wins both the primary and the general. But as far as her chances go? Given the political capital she's built up in the past few years, and the media, the left, and est. GOP (but I repeat myself) tripping over itself, I give her better odds than any RINO. I'm with Rush on this one. If we let the left, et al, pick our candidate, then we've learned nothing from 2008.

There's a great statement in "Not Without a Fight" by Max Lemus by Jeff Knox at around 1:16-1:20. The question was about NRA and the matter of not compromising principles. He made the point that he'd rather lose on principle than win something that's not really winning. If more people thought like that (and voted like that), then maybe would would win more often.

If Newt (unlikely based on recent events) or another RINO were to get the nomination, I'd stay home. Yes, if the current usurper gets another term it'll mean I'll need to pick up the pace in my prepping. But I'm tired of rewarding these douchebags with my vote.

Anyhow, I understand the pessimism given the results of 2008, (if you were implying what I thought...if not, oh, well, hope you enjoyed my post ;-)), but I'm just trying to inject a little more optimism, here.

JWright says:

on 6/13/2011 3:09:00 PM

We have plenty of time to worry about future POTUS noms.
We have plenty of time to prep for TEOTWAWKI.
First, they will come for the Jews.
Oh, wait ... that's already happening isn't it!

Laughingdog says:

on 6/14/2011 3:11:21 PM

Wait. Are you implying that it was Palin who gave Obama his 2008 victory?

What I got from Weer'd Beard's comment is that he realized he was looking at Palin the same way the Obamanites were looked at him. So less an issue with her than with what he was expecting from her on some level.

markofafreeman says:

on 6/14/2011 3:21:24 PM

Laughingdog:

Ah. If that's the case, then, yeah, I can see that.

In other words, you've come around to Robb's original post, right, WB?

kevdog says:

on 6/14/2011 5:20:01 PM

Palin is a right-wing authoritarian, I thought we were sort of done with that breed of conservative..

Robb Allen says:

on 6/14/2011 5:32:29 PM

She is? Do you have specific examples of that?

Linoge says:

on 6/14/2011 7:33:06 PM

Unfortunately, people desperately want a leader. They like being told what to do. They like knowing they can hold someone else responsible for their screw ups. They like not having to think.

And by "people" and "they", I mean both Right and Left.

Until that changes, our country is not going to change, and, in fact, it is only going to get worse... no matter who is or is not in charge.

markofafreeman says:

on 6/14/2011 11:47:52 PM

Wow. Never heard of Palin referred to as a right wing authoritarian. Santorum, on the other hand...

What kind of right wing authoritarian doesn't care so much about the average home pot smoker and believes law enforcement should focus on other things? Granted, she's not for it legalization, but which ones are? (At least outside the two libertarians running as GOP candidates, each of which have much more serious flaws than Palin -- open borders, ignorant foreign policy, and/or just plain kookiness.) From what she said about it almost sounded like she would at least be in favor of ratcheting down the War on (some) Drugs a notch or two.

If she runs, I don't any of the current crop can hold a candle to her as far as keeping the government out of our hair as much as possible. Rick Perry could change that, but then, there was that whole immunization thing.

markofafreeman says:

on 6/14/2011 11:49:35 PM

Ugh. Sorry. Forgot to close my italics after 'current'.

{Fixed it for you - R}

Doc Merlin says:

on 6/18/2011 1:37:21 PM

"If she runs, I don't any of the current crop can hold a candle to her as far as keeping the government out of our hair as much as possible. Rick Perry could change that, but then, there was that whole immunization thing."

And the end run around the Texas Constitution wrt to corporate income taxes. Call them by a different name and then pass them.

Anyway, Rob, I agree, WE need to change the world. There will be no messiah that will save it for us, the actual messiah already gave us the world to fix. Its our job now.

Comments have been closed on this topic.